Net neutrality is dead - at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.

Today's vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don’t want to. The new rules largely don’t prevent internet providers from doing anything. They can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they’re going to do it.

Nobody wanted the FCC to vote like this. Public support for net neutrality is massive. The only reason this is happening is pure, unbridled corruption at the very root of the American political system.

I'm not sure if this ruling is good or bad quite honestly. I do know I'm more than a little suspicious of the very same folks that brought in all the cable regulations 10 years ago which seriously decreased services and caused rates to go up. I was doing work for the cable companies back then, working on their equipment. I saw the impact it had, and very little of it was good for the consumer.

Just for a little balance, here's a video that presents the issue in a more complete way. It's about 12 minutes long.

I'm not sure if this ruling is good or bad quite honestly. I do know I'm more than a little suspicious of the very same folks that brought in all the cable regulations 10 years ago which seriously decreased services and caused rates to go up. I was doing work for the cable companies back then, working on their equipment. I saw the impact it had, and very little of it was good for the consumer.

So do you have any evidence for this? Despite all hype, net neutrality never stopped ISPs from setting their own rates, investing in infrastructure, and becoming profitable. It merely requires them to not be discriminatory, that's it. The problems you are describing are caused by lack of competition. Repealing net neutrality doesn't fix competition.

Just for a little balance, here's a video that presents the issue in a more complete way. It's about 12 minutes long.
...
There really is more than one side to this, from a consumer's point of view.

Steven crowder spouts too much BS for my tastes.

Can you elaborate in your own words how consumer interests were hurt by net neutrality? The problem is consumer interests are not represented in these backroom deals *combined* with the fact that there's insufficient competition to cause ISPs to worry about loosing customers. ISP monopolies hold all the cards, net neutrality sought to ensure that consumers wouldn't loose choices online just because they had no choice of ISP.

Even some of the ISPs admitted to investors that net neutrality didn't really harm the ISP business.

So do you have any evidence for this? Despite all hype, net neutrality never stopped ISPs from setting their own rates, investing in infrastructure, and becoming profitable. It merely requires them to not be discriminatory, that's it. The problems you are describing are caused by lack of competition. Repealing net neutrality doesn't fix competition.

Again, I really don't know if this is good or bad. I haven't taken the time to really go through the existing regulations, nor the new ones coming out. My only real point to my post was to attempt to examine issues the come into play for keeping net neutrality. The more I have read on the matter, the less clear the answer is.

Steven crowder spouts too much BS for my tastes.

Fair enough. Most of the other resources out there for arguing against neutrality were far too long for the purposes of this discussion.

Can you elaborate in your own words how consumer interests were hurt by net neutrality?

Nope. I also don't know if anything, as of today, would be all that much different without those rules set in place. My concern, for either case, is what are the long term ramifications of the government stepping in with any regulations. I'm not opposed to regulation, just that we understand that they are a powerful tool to wield on an industry.

The problem is consumer interests are not represented in these backroom deals *combined* with the fact that there's insufficient competition to cause ISPs to worry about loosing customers. ISP monopolies hold all the cards, net neutrality sought to ensure that consumers wouldn't loose choices online just because they had no choice of ISP.

In the area I live, if you wanted broadband it was Time Warner or AT&T. Both were less than stellar. Neither did much to up their game until Google Fiber moved into town. All of the sudden folks like TW were providing real customer service, real appointment times, and improved speeds. No regulation can make things like that happen. Only competition in the market place can.

Even some of the ISPs admitted to investors that net neutrality didn't really harm the ISP business.

I think the point that Mr. Crowder was trying to get out is that NN likely won't impact already established big players. Rarely do any regulations hurt them. The question is, do these rules prevent smaller players from competing? I don't think we really know yet. Had NN stayed in place for a longer period of time, likely the answer would be more obvious.